Forum:Kirov Series by John Schettler
Anyone read or glance over this series? The premise is that a high-powered Russian cruiser goes back in time (a la Birmo) to the Atlantic in 1941, gets pursued by all the combatants' navies, fights them off with an ever-depleting supply of missiles, nukes, etc. Alan Turing is a character, which is pretty cool. The twist is that every so often the ship jumps ahead in time and place, to the Mediterranean and to the Pacific. Their actions also influence a war in the future between the U.S., Russia and China. I didn't read it yet, just read some blurbs and reviews. It doesn't seem like an AH masterpiece, but give me a story like this over Robert Conroy any day. Speaking of, he's got some ridiculous book coming out in December where the Kaiserreich invades the U.S. via Mexico in 1920. You guessed it, the title includes the year 1920 in it.... JudgeFisher (talk) 03:16, June 6, 2013 (UTC) :A Zimmerman Note AH, huh? At least this invasion will have a shred of OTL precedent, unlike the same match-up in the out-of-nowhere 1901. I'll give him points for turning over new ground; it's interesting to think of how Germany would punish American neutrality violations if they'd won because the US stayed out of France. It's still implausible, of course; if they did try a military build-up in Mexico, they'd first have to win a huge naval war just to get there, and then Pershing or whoever would invade Mexico and confront them well south of the border. :As for Kirov, never heard of it. One modern ship alone on hostile seas sounds more like Destroyermen than Axis of Time, but either way it's starting to look like an overused premise. As for the rest, it just sounds disjointed and hard to follow. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:49, June 6, 2013 (UTC) :::I openly admit I can't stand Conroy's stuff. The premise seems semi-decent until you hear more. Imperial Germany crushes France, Britain and Russia in a "short but devastating" war in 1914...the U.S. president is a "sick and delusional figure who wants to avoid war at any cost" - so Kaiser Bill ships "a huge army" to Mexico under the guise of supporting a puppet government. His real goal - wait for it - the permanent conquest of California and Texas. The showdown of course will occur at - again wait for it - the Alamo! How innovative, convenient, etc. etc. ::::That gets stupider and stupider. A WWI army wouldn't even notice the Alamo was there. Based on his reputation I've never read Conroy at all. Everything I've heard tells me I wouldn't enjoy him. Feeling a bit guilty at having judged him without reading him I try to take it easy wit the criticism. But this one makes that tough. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:50, June 7, 2013 (UTC) :::I think I'll give Kirov a chance because in my mind I envision some resemblance to Hunt for the Red October. Not expecting a miracle though. JudgeFisher (talk) 05:03, June 6, 2013 (UTC) I'm trying not to slander Robert Conroy,but since I read some of his books I have to say,he isn't the greatest AH writer ever.In most of his books you can expect sex scenes(hey,Turtledove has some too,but at least his premises are much better),profanity(again,Turtledove has some too,but in Conroy's book even Josif Stalin curses like a prostitute) and lame plots. 19:50, June 7, 2013 (UTC)Zhukov15 :Stalin is widely reputed to have been somewhat foul-mouthed. Obviously he didn't speak English, and literal translations of obscene phrases fom one language to another are usually nonsensical if not altogether impossible. But what you're describing sounds like it may have been accurate in spirit. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:51, June 7, 2013 (UTC) ::::Oh brother, just when you thought it couldn't get much worse from Conroy, it does: Liberty 1784 JudgeFisher (talk) 03:51, August 1, 2013 (UTC) :::::I've only read 1901, which I rather enjoyed at the time, honestly. He clearly did enough homework to make the setting and the characters seem "right", so I was willing to overlook the problems. And it wasn't WWII or ACW, which I appreciated at the time. But the ending was problematic enough that I decided I wasn't in any hurry to read Conroy's other works. When he fell into his WWII limbo, I was glad I'd made that decision. However, now that he's playing around in other eras....I agree, both sound ludicrous conceptually, but at the same time, it's easy to see how the 1920 book and the 1784 book could be a fun way to kill an afternoon. It would also be nice for publishers and editors to realize that there is more to human history than WWII and the ACW. I might see about getting those from the library. TR (talk) 15:59, August 1, 2013 (UTC) ::::::I don't see what's so objectionable about 1784. I don't know if I'll go out of my way to read it, but I'm not rolling my eyes at it. I've never really understood the Battle of the Chesapeake so I can't say whether it's implausible to imagine an alternate version giving the Brits so great an advantage, but otherwise it all looks at least bearable on the face of it. ::::::And I'm with TR: It's good to see AH writers branching out into other areas. The ACW and especially WWII have been done to death. Turtle Fan (talk) 18:02, August 3, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::On the surface it sounds good - some other time periods, something new. But the guy is too goddamn formulaic. I will honestly one of these days derive the formula he uses. One all-American clean cut good guy, one bad ass, one love interest, one battle where everything goes wrong for America, one turn-it-all-around decision, sex scene, bad ass dies, but America wins and wins big. Oh, and if the POD is in WW II, make sure to screw the (cardboard cutout) Russians so they won't recover in the next 230 years. Sure, HT is formulaic too, so are many writers, Tom Clancy, Stephen King, but this guy is nauseating. JudgeFisher (talk) 04:53, September 3, 2013 (UTC)